Group items tagged

The part about the "whiplash" for the Republican Party that you mention is compelling to me, partly because I've read things (I think a few on this Diigo group) that have suggested the exact opposite. Some Democrats are hoping that the radicalization of the Republican Party will continue and make a Democrat victory in 2016 a sure thing. What Sullivan is suggesting seems to make more sense. What he portrays as an entirely new second-term America under Obama seems to fit perfectly with the President's message of "finishing the job," and frankly strikes me as a little idealistic. The section on the first page that describes the unique conditions for a Reagan status second term (tax cuts, deficit was smaller, etc.) is very telling to me: from what I can tell, these circumstances don't exist in the same way today. For him to transform into the "bi-partisan hero" you are talking about with things like immigration reform, it seems like he will need to not simply "finish the job," but take on a totally new strategy (like, as Sullivan points out, Reagan did in his second term).

This is a very compelling argument for giving Obama 4 more years to finish what he has started. Even though it talks about "potential not prediction." More and more I'm understanding that Reagan was more of a centrist and more practical than idealogical.

This article is full of generalizations that are not true. First off, Chris Christie is not some hero that created jobs (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/christie-talks-of-a-comeback-but-jobs-data-may-say-otherwise/?ref=christopherjchristie). New Jersey has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state in the country. His entire "New Jersey Comeback" is essentially not true. A plethora of top scholars have pointed out that New Jersey is in fact not doing that well. In that vain, it is quite telling that Christie didn't once mention the "New Jersey Comeback" in his speech at the convention, because it is frankly just rhetoric. Second off, the claims that this author makes about Democrats are pure generalization based upon ideological rhetoric that doesn't provide for a fruitful debate at all. This statement: "Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money" is offensive. There is no statistical analysis, just a generalization about women. Also, where is this anti-rich message? Not once did the author of the article provide any basis for his idea that Democrats are anti-rich. In fact, Democrats have time and time again clarified that they are not anti-rich; they just want policies that will allow all the chance to succeed and eventually become rich. Another absurd claim the author makes is, "Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money." The system is still unfair! There are m

I enjoyed this article and it voiced some ideas that usually come up with Presidential debates. Hearing them explicitly, like the really interesting opinion that the candidate challenging the incumbent usually does better, was interesting, especially after the first debate. It's amazing how many of these predictions actually came true.

It definitely makes sense to me that the incumbent is at a disadvantage. The point that you brought up, Anna, about the candidate who goes second having the easiest time is definitely something we saw last week. A lot of the time, it seemed like the second speaker wasn't even answering the same question. It was also funny to me how understated the last part of the author's piece was: Mondale didn't lose in 1984, he got completely demolished (he lost in 49 out of 50 state). For an author who supports a second term for Obama, this seems like a really promising point to make. Even if Obama doesn't have a comeback in the next two, it has no real bearing on November.

I really liked this piece. The terrifying part to me (the author points this out really well) isn't just how little gets done, but how little gets talked about. The list of three other massive issues - more demanding and globalized jobs, energy crisis, and immigration - can hardly be brought up with the radicalization of the parties you mentioned. The reason this election is "about" jobs and the economy is that it is the only issue the parties can agree to disagree about constructively. Any one of the others, I think, would become about ideology and not about reaching a sensible compromise.

This article, to me, really does address the main obstacle to becoming a united nation, which is radicals on either side of the political spectrum, but particularly conservatives. As a conservative myself, I find that often times I am frustrated by how stubborn or radical the leaders of the Republicans can be and this article makes an excellent point as to how that is affecting our nation. What our leaders need to understand is that they are never going to fully get their way, but instead they need to learn to compromise. Otherwise, nothing will get done. I agree with John that all of the other important issues need to be addressed, but they can't because of the radical ideals of a few powerful people.

This editorial, along with John's article, show how important it is for the Republicans to become less radical. John's article shows that Karl Rove is actually already trying to do this by supporting more traditionally, conservative politicians and publicly taking more moderate stances. However, Romney and most of the Republican ads continue to cater to the radical right and their "no new taxes" and anti government positions. I wonder what would happen if Romney actually took the more moderate positions of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Would he lose the Republican base? I also found Murdoch's observation about immigrants being "natural Republicans" very interesting. Is this because they he imagines they have more conservative social opinions?

This is a really compelling piece: I particularly like the early line that suggests American's want solutions "whether that means a more active or a more passive government." This is how I feel, and sums up what I think is the easiest way to get past polar politics. I hope to see some of this attitude in Obama's second term: now that his hope for re-election can't be trounced, I hope we'll see less gridlock in our political machine. This is a really good article to re-read now that we know the results. The basic premise of the article, however, is confusing to me: I know this author is referring to philosophy a lot, but I always think of America as leaning far to the right on more concrete issues. In healthcare, for instance, we hang on to a free-market solution while most of the industrial world has taken on a universal option. The strength and funding of national defense is another example. I am curious how this more "populist" philosophy will interact with the practical right-ness in the future, like you mention.

I think you could just attribute this to a correction for the rightward drift of both candidates. Obama is largely a centrist and Romney has somewhat aligned himself with the radical right, so both of them moving left helps them come back towards the "middle" of their party. I, personally, hope the leftward correction in the Republican party will continue into Obama's second term and, like John says, dissipate some of the gridlock in Congress.